What's your attitude towards PVP?

[Scruffy nerf herder]

My only rule as DM is that what happens in character stays in character and doesn't spill over to the table.

Follow that rule, along with common decency, and pretty much anything goes. Experience tells me that every so often in a long campaign some big in-character argument or fight will rear its head, then once it's out of their systems things settle down again.

I neither expect nor demand on any sort of meta-level that the PCs in my game aspire to any sort of hero status - they go on the adventures they go on and do what they do, and while some heroism might tangentially result from that (and some characters might bask in it!) if the party instead decides to throw in with the bad guys or whatever it's all fine with me.

IME it's the first few adventures in a long campaign when players aren't as invested in their characters that can really be a powderkeg, but with the right players the resulting shenanigans can generate some amazing fun and hilarity.

Mmmmm-mmmm-mmmm, this post goes down like fried chicken! Look I'm not interested in putting down folks who can't understand the appeal of playing like this, but you're explaining such a bog standard kind of campaign (at least in terms of my own experiences), and yet it's so "subversive" by many people's standards it's like you're reinventing the wheel. We, i.e. people who have fun playing in all evil campaigns, are playing Dungeons N Hamsters the same as all you guys.

You don't have to be an alien or something to think it's fun being a Sith when you play Knights of the Old Republic. It's a game. The heroic/normal campaign is still chocked full of stuff that is bewilderingly different from how a person would act irl. Morality is already a wacky mess if you just try lining up your ideas about what's really good and just, in the real world, with the things that "good guys" do in campaigns.

Wouldn't a lot of us be pacifists if in the real world there was magic and stuff? We wouldn't honestly go out adventuring and killing "for good", would we? We'd think those "good" adventurers are insane and wish that our "actually good" town guards would throw them out before they cause bloodshed in town.

 

[pemerton]

"Interpersonal conflict" is a far cry from PvP. You have have drama within a party without it devolving into combat or similar actions. While not comprehensive, one way to think about it is as long it stops before it requires dice (attacks, pick-pocketing, etc.) then it's not into the territory of PvP.

Yeah, if we're playing Paranoia or Toon or something like that, the scale of "what's acceptable" is very different. Thanks for pointing that out - this is in the TTRPG general, and does include games like that.

Heck, I'm running Masks: A New Generation which is a PbtA game about teen superheroes, and half the mechanics are about finding yourself and the other half is about all the teen angst, anger, uncertainty, and the like. You are expected to lash out at your teammates some. But it's a supers game - death is basically off the table.

I'm trying to reconcile, or integrate, these two comments.

If it's sufficient to count as PvP that dice be rolled, then what does death have to do with it?

PCs can confront one another in domains of conflict other than lethal combat, and dice be rolled to resolve it. And PCs can make plans and perform actions that will thwart the goals and plans of another PC - perhaps rolling dice in the process - without the consequences being lethal.

If you are referring to my statement, I would like to note I didn't say it "didn't work". I said that it detracts more than it adds. As in, the effort to make it work costs more than the payoff is worth - which assumes it can, in fact, work.

That's not my experience. As I posted, in party-oriented play the players have to come up with various sorts of self-limiting devices. That's not very much effort. It's just part of the give-and-take of party play.

In any game in which the players choose their PCs' goals, conflict between PCs is almost inevitably going to be on the table as a possibility. Conversely, a rule that all PC goals must be compatible if not the same is a clear departure from the idea of players choosing for their own PC.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

I'm trying to reconcile, or integrate, these two comments.

If it's sufficient to count as PvP that dice be rolled, then what does death have to do with it?

PCs can confront one another in domains of conflict other than lethal combat, and dice be rolled to resolve it. And PCs can make plans and perform actions that will thwart the goals and plans of another PC - perhaps rolling dice in the process - without the consequences being lethal.

This reflects pretty well my general experiences with PvP. Usually when it's come to dice rolling that doesn't mean character death is on the table, or the party is splitting up or anything else crazy. There's some tension, things are getting spicy, and it's getting resolved.

 

[Umbran]

Conversely, a rule that all PC goals must be compatible if not the same is a clear departure from the idea of players choosing for their own PC.

Oh no! A clear departure! Whatever shall we do?!?

Sorry for the sarcasm there. But players are always expected to fit their personal choices within boundaries. There's the whole thing with there being an agreement on expectations before play begins, and all that. Nobody at the table, player or GM, operates with no restrictions on their choices.

RPGs are social games. If one wants to play with other people, and get the attendant benefits, you must be willing to take on the cost - some compromise may be required.

 

[James Gasik]

I have a long-standing rule as a GM and a player. If players want to fight each other, I'm not there for that. I'll leave the room and let them figure it out. It's a waste of my time.

The games I play require the players to use teamwork to succeed. I will admit, I used to play V:tM, where PVP and sudden betrayals were largely inevitable, but I got tired of that nonsense years ago.

Mind control and the like can happen, of course, and it's a fact of (gaming) life. If I'm the GM, I use effects like that sparingly. If it happens at the table, I deal with it. If it happens to me, I will refuse to be anything other than a robot, doing the bare minimum to harm allies- I take a dim view of players who seem overjoyed at the idea of being "allowed" to murder their allies.

 

[Blue]

I'm trying to reconcile, or integrate, these two comments.

That will be pretty hard. The first comment was made directly in the context of a D&D-type game, where parties are supposed to work together.

The second one was an acknowledgement from someone else that there are different style games out there, that have different expectations (including social expectations) about PvP. In a game like Paranoia, backstabbing your fellow is not just a common part of play, the game is set up to actively encourage it. In Toon, your goal is to be funny, and there are no lasting repercussions if you "accidentally" blow up another Toon.

If it's sufficient to count as PvP that dice be rolled, then what does death have to do with it?

It's not sufficient, but it's an indicator. That's why I called out it wasn't comprehensive. There are times when it's PvP without rolling dice (say, hiring an assassin to kill another NPC) and there's times there are dice that aren't PvP (say, doing an Insight check when attempting to determine if another PC has been replaced by a doppelganger.

PCs can confront one another in domains of conflict other than lethal combat, and dice be rolled to resolve it. And PCs can make plans and perform actions that will thwart the goals and plans of another PC - perhaps rolling dice in the process - without the consequences being lethal.

And I am unsure where you are assigning "death" to my statement. My two examples were attacks and pick-pocketing. Yes, one can lead to death, but I'm with you - death isn't the only potential consequence of PvP.

That's not my experience. As I posted, in party-oriented play the players have to come up with various sorts of self-limiting devices. That's not very much effort. It's just part of the give-and-take of party play.

In any game in which the players choose their PCs' goals, conflict between PCs is almost inevitably going to be on the table as a possibility. Conversely, a rule that all PC goals must be compatible if not the same is a clear departure from the idea of players choosing for their own PC.

While this was to Umbran and not myself, I'd like to point out one thing. We are talking about PvP. PLAYER vs. PLAYER. You can have character tension that all of the players are okay with. This is a big difference from using this in a video game context, where the a random player and their character are not easily separable.

So as long as the players are acting in good faith with each other, it's very possible to have in-character tension and drama.

 

[pemerton]

@Umbran, are you stating an aesthetic preference or making a claim about what is practical in RPGing?

If you are stating a preference, well that is what it is. I'm sure plenty of people prefer their RPGs without conflict between the protagonists.

But if you're making a practical claim, that conflict between protagonists imposes a cost that is untenable or at least undesirable, and that as a result the most practical way forward is for players to constrain their choice of PC goals so as to ensure compatibility or identity of them., then I don't agree.

@Blue, I take PvP in the video game/MMO context to mean one player using their avatar to try and take out another player's avatar and position. But in the context of this thread, I take it to mean conflict between PCs that goes beyond just a bit of grumbling and light characterisation. And post 53 from @Scruffy nerf herder suggests that I'm on much the same page as the OP.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@Umbran, are you stating an aesthetic preference or making a claim about what is practical in RPGing?

If you are stating a preference, well that is what it is. I'm sure plenty of people prefer their RPGs without conflict between the protagonists.

But if you're making a practical claim, that conflict between protagonists imposes a cost that is untenable or at least undesirable, and that as a result the most practical way forward is for players to constrain their choice of PC goals so as to ensure compatibility or identity of them., then I don't agree.

How would it not be a preference? What could this 'cost' be, aside from an aesthetic distaste for some element of play which might thus outweigh some other positive aesthetic value? I mean, there's not some troll that collects money from D&D players every time they disagree...

Which all makes perfect sense, intuitively. Some people like certain activities, others don't. I mean, its possible to make some arguments along the lines of "the number of RPG participants who enjoy PvP conflict is so small that it precludes any reasonably likelihood of such a game continuing" or some such, which perhaps becomes a more concrete kind of value-neutral statement, but it is obviously going to be hard to support, at best, and can always be undermined by some variation of "Well if you just do it right, they will have fun!"

 

[kenada]

It depends on the game and the creative agenda. If the game is about playing through adventures and dealing with external conflicts (e.g., the evil villain threatening the realm), then having internal (intraparty) conflicts risks messing up the game. That’s especially true if the system doesn’t handle social conflicts against PCs very well or presumes that any conflict is PC versus monster/task.

I would expect it in a Scum and Villainy campaign. I wouldn’t expect it in a traditional D&D game. I might allow it in my exploration-driven sandbox, depending on how things were playing out (and that it was remaining character against character and not truly player versus player).

 

[pemerton]

If the game is about playing through adventures and dealing with external conflicts (e.g., the evil villain threatening the realm), then having internal (intraparty) conflicts risks messing up the game.

This would be a textbook example of players don't get to choose their PCs goals.

That’s especially true if the system doesn’t handle social conflicts against PCs very well or presumes that any conflict is PC versus monster/task.

Agreed.